P.M. PUNNOOSE versus KM. MUNNERUDDIN AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 23-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.M. PUNNOOSE 
v. 
KM. MUNNERUDDIN AND ORS. 
JULY 23, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTl AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; Sections 
C 10(2) Proviso and 25: 
Eviction Petition filed by the landlords on ground of default in payment 
of rent-Allowed by the Rent Controller-Reversed by the Appellate Court-
High Court allowed revision petition in favour of the landlords-Held: Since 
D there was a bonafide dispute as to the payment of quantum of arrears of rent, 
exercising power under proviso to Section I 0(2) of the Act the Rent Controller 
should have directed the tenant to make payment of arrears within a 
reasonable time-Since the tenant has made efforts in tendering rent and any 
delay attributable to him in the payment of rent is bonafide, the tenant 
cannot be held wilfal defaulter-Hence order of eviction set aside. 
E 
Section /0(2)(i) and Explanation-Meaning of Proceeding for eviction 
on ground of default in payment of rent initiated by the landlord without 
serving two months' notice-Onus of proving 'wilful default' by tenant is on 
the landlord-In a suit filed after serving such notice, presumption of tenant 
being in wilful default is raised-Onus shifts on tenant to prove that default 
F to pay or tender the rent was not wilful. Section 25-Revisional jurisdiction 
of the High Court-Exercise of-Held: A finding of fact arrived at by the 
appellate authority could not be lightly interfered-Hence the finding of fact 
arrived at by the High Court reappreciating the evidence acting like a Court 
of appeal is not justified-Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Section 15. 
G 
Words and Phrases: 
'wilful default'-Meaning of in the context of Rent Control legislation. 
Respondent-landlords purchased the suit property from the 
H predecessor-in-title. Appellant was a tenant therein on a monthly rent. The 
698 
P.M. PUNNOOSE v. K.M. MUNNERUDDIN 
699 
appellant was paying rent to the landlord/respondents by way of money orders A 
up to September, 1988. Thereafter, the respondents did not accept the rent 
though appellant continued to remit the monthly rent. Respondents denied it. 
Later, Respondents filed an eviction petition on the ground of default in 
payment of rent. Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition. Aggrieved, the 
tenant filed an appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Court. Revision 
Petition preferred by the landlords was allowed by the High Court. Hence the B 
present appeal 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: t.t. The counter affidavit filed by the landlords in this Court 
shows that the present one is not the case wherein the appellant was sought C 
to be held a 'wilful defaulter' by reference to the Explanation appended to sub-
section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 
Act. (705-C) 
t.2. The explanation appended to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the D 
Act enacts a rule of evidence. After the issuance of two month's notice 
claiming the rent, the default by tenant shall be construed as wilful raising a 
presumption in that regard and it will be for the tenant to show availability of 
sufficient cause or circumstances beyond his control to escape from the 
consequence of default. The landlord is not prevented from initiating 
proceedings for eviction on the ground of default under Section I 0(2)(i) of E 
the Act, without serving a notice under the Explanation but in that case it will 
be for the landlord to make out a case of willful default by tenant failing which 
the Controller may exercise his discretion under the proviso giving the tenant 
a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days for payment or tender the rent. 
The present one is not a case of the landlord-respondents having served a F 
notice of demand on the appellant and, therefore, the question of holding the 
appellant a wilful defaulter by reference to the Explanation to sub-section (2) 
of Section 10 of the Act does not arise. [706-C-F[ 
S. Sundaram Pillai and Ors. v. V.R. Pattabiraman and Ors .• [1985( 1 
SCC 591; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa and Ors., 1200013 SCC 282 and G 
Raja Muthukone (dead) by Lrs. v. T. Gopalasami and Anr., 1200214 SCC 204, 
referred. 
1.3. The principal dispute centered around the payment of rent for the 
month of October, 1988. There was a controversy as to whether the rent for 
that month was paid or tendered or notand, therefore, the appellant, to be on H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. I S.C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.